Techdirt. Stories filed under "patches"Easily digestible tech news...https://www.techdirt.com/
en-usTechdirt. Stories filed under "patches"https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/td-88x31.gifhttps://www.techdirt.com/Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:54:55 PDTPetition Submitted To Require Congress To Wear The Logos Of Their Corporate DonorsTim Cushinghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130324/17344622436/petition-submitted-to-require-congress-to-wear-logos-their-corporate-donors.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130324/17344622436/petition-submitted-to-require-congress-to-wear-logos-their-corporate-donors.shtml
The idea that members of Congress should wear the logos of their corporate sponsors is as old as the internet itself, but it appears that someone's finally doing something about it. (Or at least bringing it to the attention of the current administration where it can be handed a set of talking points.) A petition at "We the People" requests that Congress members switch over to NASCAR-style representation, and wear their "affections" literally on their sleeves.

Since most politicians' campaigns are largely funded by wealthy companies and individuals, it would give voters a better sense of who the candidate they are voting for is actually representing if the company's logo, or individual's name, was prominently displayed upon the candidate's clothing at all public appearances and campaign events. Once elected, the candidate would be required to continue to wear those "sponsor's" names during all official duties and visits to constituents. The size of a logo or name would vary with the size of a donation. For example, a $1 million dollar contribution would warrant a patch of about 4" by 8" on the chest, while a free meal from a lobbyist would be represented by a quarter-sized button. Individual donations under $1000 are exempt.

This may seem as frivolous as requesting the construction of a Death Star or the immediate expulsion of Brits who criticize the NRA, but the underlying frustration with today's political world is evident. Many Americans are experiencing the sinking feeling that their future is in the hands of corporations and their purchased legislators, cutting them out of the loop. The periodic call to "throw the bums out" either goes unanswered or just results in a new set of bums

Holding legislators accountable often seems impossible, so if you can't beat 'em, shame 'em. If members of Congress are willing to capitulate to the highest bidder(s), the least they can do is display their true loyalties for all to see. The application of corporate logos would make it obvious at a glance who might be influencing elected officials' stances on various issues. As enjoyable as it would be to see this put into action, the idea itself comes wrapped in its own set of problems.

To begin with, this would place entirely too much importance on the visible logos (or lack thereof), replacing informed opinions with snap judgements. Mistaken conclusions would be drawn. A relatively logo-free Congressman would be perceived as a righteous lawmaker in a sea of purchased sinners, no matter the voting record or moral stature. The wrong conclusion could also be drawn in the opposite direction, turning a legislator's eerie resemblance to a stock car into a maze of twisty corporate conspiracy theories, all alike. Or something in between, like this hypothetical: A Congressman covered in logos of corporations that employ hundreds in his district -- sell-out or man of the people?

Another problem is that no matter what dollar amount is used as the cutoff line, donors will still find a way to get their money into the right hands while avoiding turning "their" legislator into a logoed farce. If the loophole isn't big enough to allow the (relatively) easy flow of money, the law will be amended until it is. No representative wants to look like they're corporate property and very few corporations are willing to roll on ungreased wheels.

Another issue is the distraction factor. If implemented, our already contentious partisan politics will devolve even further, resulting in pointless attacks based on who's wearing what corporate logo, or how many they're wearing. I firmly believe a legislative branch suffering from vapor lock is preferable to one that feels a day without an introduced bill is a wasted day, but sooner or later some important stuff needs to get done. It took our legislators four years to pass a "yearly" budget. Delays like this hurt actual taxpayers. I can only imagine how much longer that particular ordeal would have continued if logo-related arguments were added to the mix.

That brings us to the ultimate problem with this petition: a huge conflict of (self) interest. The very people petitioners want covered in logos are the same people who'd prefer their benefactors remain hidden. Not coincidentally, they're also the people that introduce, vote on and pass laws. It's damn near impossible to push a bill through Congress when a majority of legislators oppose it. And no matter how entertaining this would be, bypassing the legislative process to get this enacted (executive order?) screws with the underlying checks and balances, something no one should be encouraging.

All that being said, I'd still like to see the petition hit the "RESPONSE NEEDED" mark. If nothing else, it will send a message to the administration (and our lawmakers) that the American public views its representatives as little more than water carriers for big business and special interest groups. I'd also like to see the administration's response to this message. Most likely, it will point out that this information is readily available at the government's own Federal Election Commission site, not to mention informational powerhouses like OpenSecrets.org (whose site is much easier to search and navigate). It may also express concern over a loss of "decorum" should this be implemented, what with serviceable dark suits replaced with day-glo blazers covered in corporate logos.

If I had my way, I'd select a third option: have the petition be submitted as a bill and watch legislators go insane trying to take it seriously ("The public has spoken!") while simultaneously finding some way to torpedo the legislation without looking completely irate ("Stupid public! Why won't it shut up?!?"). A few days or weeks of logo-related panic would possibly bump C-SPAN ratings into the single digits and warm my cold, cynical heart ever so slightly.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>the-esteemed-Congressman,-brought-to-you-in-part-by...https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130324/17344622436Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:07:00 PDTCharging $40,000 To Issue A Patch Makes Games 'Better,' Microsoft?Tim Cushinghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120721/18262519786/charging-40000-to-issue-patch-makes-games-better-microsoft.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120721/18262519786/charging-40000-to-issue-patch-makes-games-better-microsoft.shtmlPolytron announced it would not be releasing a new patch for its Xbox Live Arcade (XBLA) hit Fez. (More specifically, a patch to fix the original patch, which corrupted a certain percentage of players' saves.) The issue at hand wasn't a lack of desire to throw man hours at a finished game, but rather that Microsoft's XBLA policy only allows for one free patch, with subsequent patches requiring the game to go through a recertification process at a cost of $40,000.

Plenty of articles were written on all sides of the issue. Microsoft's policy on patching has its heart in the right place. It simply wants developers to release polished products, rather than dump unfinished software into the XBLA market and let paying customers do the beta testing. (If only Microsoft felt that way about its own software, but that's an entirely different rant...) But surely there's more than a fine line separating buggy shovelware and a developer trying to improve the gameplay experience for its paying customers.

The best commentary on this issue looks at something these others have missed with their focus on contractual obligations, Microsoft/Fez behaving badly, or whether paying customers should be unwilling participants in a contractual feud. Rob at the inexplicably-titled We Make the Cops Look Dumb (home of Mersey Remakes) says they're missing the point. This isn't about everything surrounding the patch and its attendant $40,000. It's about making (and selling) great games.

I’m uncomfortable with any debate that can argue around patches being seen as bad things to have, things that customers or services need to be protected from. Patches are to improve games. Patches are to make games better. Arguing against patches is to argue against the right to have better games. This is a ridiculous thing, beyond absurd. I’m uncomfortable when an imaginary line is drawn between services where patches are ok and where patches are not. Why is a patch to an iThing seen as desirable but XBLA not, beyond the whims of Microsoft?

Rob also looks at some of the other arguments, many of which we've seen used in the comment threads here at Techdirt, especially when dealing with artists finding themselves being manhandled by contractual details. This one in particular surfaces (too) often: "Too bad. They signed a contract."

I’m uncomfortable when people feel comfortable pulling the getting into bed with the devil argument, you signed a contract for fame and fortune and now, this is the price you must pay. I’m uncomfortable because it leaves no room for nuance, it leaves no room for context. It becomes a moral argument with nothing that hinges around whether something is fair, whether something is unfair, whether something is even viable. I would not like to be the person to cast such a judgement because I would not like to be the person if something went titsupus contractualus for me, to have the same argument thrown in my face.

This argument has always bothered me as well. Those espousing it seem hold two contradictory thoughts: that those holding the contract (label, studio, etc.) are somehow both massively benefitting the artists (simply by being the "infallible" system) and allowed to screw their signed artists without being called out for it. So, if the contract allows for screwing of said artists, it's just too bad. Legalese trumps any effort towards making it a mutually beneficial situation.

Then there's this argument: it's ok if this creator gets screwed because he's a jerk on the internet/IRL. This is like saying police brutality is ok as long as the person being beaten is a criminal. Is this rhetorical device still cool if you're the one who happens to be the jerk? Or worse, you could be one of the "good people" that "bad things" happen to.

I’m uncomfortable with the “but it’s Fish” train of thought because next time, it might not be Fish. It might be me. It might be you. It might be your friend or a developer you love not a developer you love to hate.

Then, of course, there's the "helpful" percentage of the crowd, always willing to suggest how things might have been done differently. It's one thing to suggest a solution while suggestions are still being welcomed. It's quite another to roll in post-mortem and point out everywhere the victim went wrong.

I’m uncomfortable when people say “you should have just released on Steam in the first place” when contracts were signed at a time when Steam was still 12 months away from showing its indie selling claws to one and all, when its notorious difficulty to get greenlit was at its peak. When other services were seen as behind the XBLA curve. I’m uncomfortable with hindsight being used as a stick to berate people with.

That's a tough one to avoid. Nearly everyone who's ever posted a comment or written for a blog has at one point or another found it impossible to resist playing a few downs as armchair quarterback. "What you should do next time" is definitely preferable to anything containing the past tense ("What you should have done..."), but neither does much to address the actual roadblock in question.

Rob's main concern is one that should be the main concern for gamers and developers alike: making great games. And Microsoft, for all its well-intended ways, is aligning itself against that very goal.

Right now, I’m just uncomfortable with the whole charade that’s sprung from a statement which points out the ridiculousness of a system that can penalise people for wanting to make better games. And I’m uncomfortable with how comfortably we let this shit slide over us.

Say what you will about Fish's divisive personality or the rigged system that is XBLA. Talk about how an indie studio with a million paying customers shouldn't complain about costs and time. Point out rival services and their advantages. But don't forget that underneath it all, a developer wanted to improve its game and the gatekeeper decided that the developers and customers would be better off if everyone "played by the rules" and nothing got fixed.